Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 46978 (KAR)

SRI.M.N.CHANDREGOWDA v. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER

WP/36411/2018 · 2026-02-04

Suraj Govindaraj

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6787 WP No. 36411 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 36411 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. M.N. CHANDREGOWDA S/O LATE NARASIMHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT: NO.3189/8-9 NAVODAYA ITI COLLEGE ROAD JAYANAGARA LAYOUT K R PET, MANDYA DISTRICT-571426. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARENDRA D.V. GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER K.R. PET TALUK PANCHAYAT K.R. PET, MANDYA DISTRICT-571426. 2. MURUKANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT MURUKANAHALLI VILLAGE SEELANERE HOBLI REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-571426. 3. SRI H.B. RAMESHA S/O LATE BOREGOWDA MAJOR RESIDING: BEHIND KALEGOWDA SOCIETY, HEMAVATHY LAYOUT, K.R.PET, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. G.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R3) Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6787 WP No. 36411 of 2018 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 13.04.2017 MADE IN APPEAL NO.2/2002 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. 63 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; a. Quash the order dated 13.04.2017 made in appeal No.2/2012 passed by the First respondent vide Annexure-C. b. Quash the order dated 13.04.2017 made in appeal No.3/2011-12 passed by the second First respondent vide Annexure-D. c. Grant such other relief or reliefs as deemed fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Despite the order dated 22.01.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner once again seeks for an adjournment. 3. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting matter, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7